(I've only just made this connection and am having trouble keeping up, so apologies if I'm repeating what others have already said, but:)[ETA omg, and I typed this before I knew about the completely fabricated quotation from Maya's judgement.]
The fact that Sandy Kemp seems to think it's ok for him to doctor a quotation from the Supreme Court doesn't half shed light on how he seems to think it's ok for Upton to have doctored his "contemporaneous" notes, don't you think?
Serious question: what goes through these men's minds, in the interval between it occurring to them that it would serve their purposes to do something like this, and them actually doing it? Full disclosure, there have been occasions when I've wished something said something else instead of what it does say, and have wondered what would happen if I just proceeded as though it did...but then, quite apart from the morality issues which I do care about, I immediately assume that if I care about it enough to contemplate doing such manipulation, very likely someone else also cares enough to check, and that being caught out would be many times worse than dealing with reality. Why don't they think like that? Do they just assume, on the basis of experience, that they can get away with it? I suppose so.
I suppose NC's press conference tomorrow is unlikely to go into such details, but I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when they noticed this point.